________________
196
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[SEPTEMBER, 1924
group, ten are of the first century A.D. The present parahita system itself may have undergone some correction since the first century. One is of the eighth century, and the difference here may be due to some mistake.
In the third group there are only three eclipses. The maximum difference them is 23 hours. The dates here, I daresay, are wrong, viz., (A.D. 27, July 22; 40, April 30; 831, May 15).
In the last group there are six eclipses (A.D. 290, May 15; 484, January 13; 753, June 8; 787, Sept. 14; 809, July 15; 989, May 28).
Seeing that the differences here are of 3 or 4 days, the dates, I am quite sure, are wrong. Thus we find that out of the 125 eclipses I have verified according to the parahita system, 105 were quite right and 11 were almost right, there being no difference in days; only nine were wrong. This can by no means be the fault of the parahita system. The dates given are somehow or other wrong. The motion of the moon can be observed easily. Nobody, therefore, will keep an Astronomical system, if it cannot fix the position of the moon correctly. New moon, full moon, and eclipses will surely expose an incorrect system. We can, therefore, safely infer that the parahita system of Malabar, at least the system of calculating the moon's motion, is not appreciably different from the system used there during the early centuries. As for Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, etc., there may be a little more difference, because their motions are not so easily observed as that of the moon.
The meaning of the expression Chenra.'-Before entering into a discussion of the Astronomical evidence, there is one more point to be decided. The translation of irupat tonruchenra, according to the late Professor Sundaram Pillai, Venkayya, and Dewan Bahadur Swamikannu Pillai, is 22nd, not 21st. This is a wrong assumption. Relying on this, the last mentioned fixed the date of Parkara Iravi Varmar in the eleventh century (Trav. Arch. Series, Vol. II, p. 31). Some early Sovereigns of Travancore, published by Sundaram Pillai himself, affords abundant and conclusive proof to an Astronomer that the word Chenra does not mean expired day. (1) Take for instance, the inscription No. 3 (Ibid, p. 67). "Kollam 336, Itavam 6 (druchenra) Saturday, Makayiram" (5th asterism). Sundaram Pillai says that it is the 7th Itavam, not the 6th. The 7th Itavam 336 of the Quilon era is 1,556,768th day of Kali. First day of Kali was a Friday and therefore 1,556,768th day of Kali was a Sunday, not a Saturday. The asterism was Tiruvâtira (6th) not Makayiram (5th). The 6th Itavam, 336 Kollam, therefore, was a Saturday and Makayiram as stated in the inscription. So dru chenra means the 6th not the 7th.
C
Let any Astronomer verify the following dates :
(2) Kollam 427, 21st Etavam (irupattonru chenra) Wednesday and Panchami (Iascription No. 13, Ibid., p. 73.)
(3) Kollam 393, Sunday, 8th Mêtam (eṭṭu chenra), Makayiram (Trav: Arch. Series, Vol. I, p. 290.)
(4) Kollam 778, Monday, 7th Mêtam (elu chenra), (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 178).
(5) Kollam 782, Friday, 6th Mêtam (âru chemra), (Ibid.,
p. 180).
(6) Kollam 945, Friday, 15th Etavam (patiņañchu chewra), (Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 301 and 302). The reading given is 5th Etavam which is a mistake. See facsimile.
(7) Saka 1467, Friday, 30th Tulâm (muppatu chewra) (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 104). (8) Saka 1486, Sunday, 20th Mêtam (irupatu chenra) (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 106). (9) Saka 1487, Thursday, 6th Makaram (aru chenra) (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 274). (10) Saka 1489, Friday, 24th Tulâm (irupattundlu chenra) (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 275). (11) Saka 1493, Friday, 15th Etavam (patinañchu chenra) (Ibid, Vol. 1, p. 277).
In all the above inscriptions, as well as in many others I have verified, the word chenra is used to denote a current day. This word is never used to denote an expired day.
(To be continued.)
